The Role of the Informers in the Fort Dix Case
The New York Times reports on the role of the informers used in the Fort Dix case. Did they merely facilitate plans already in the minds of the defendants? Or, did they engineer and create the crimes?
Entrapment is likely to be a defense raised by those charged. As in all entrapment cases, the critical issue will be whether those charged were predisposed to commit the crime.
It seems from the article like one of the informers kept jump-starting the plan.
Indeed, over the months that followed, as the targets of the investigation spoke with a sometimes unfocused zeal about waging holy war, the informer, one of two used in the investigation, would tell them that he could get them the sophisticated weapons they wanted. He would accompany them on surveillance missions to military installations, debating the risks, and when the men looked ready to purchase the weapons, it was the informer who seemed to be pushing the idea of buying the deadliest items, startling at least one of the suspects.
....As the case goes forward, the role of the main informer will almost surely be contested. Over the years, informers in terror cases have become the focus of efforts by defense lawyers and others to call into question the legitimacy of the investigations. They have often sought to show that informers engaged in entrapment.
One of the informers in the Fort Dix case presents another problem for the Government:
More...
He previously lied to agents in an attempt to protect a friend of his. The Government hopes that it can diffuse this by early disclosure.
Is it enough if the defendants merely discussed vague plans that would not have progressed further but for the informer?
Months elapsed without significant developments. The complaint indicates that in October 2006, seven months after the informer first entered the ranks of the men, it might have been the informer who helped jump-start another suspect, Serdar Tatar, who still had not followed through on his promise to get a map of the base from his father’s pizzeria near Fort Dix. The two men were discussing Fort Dix, the complaint said, when the informer “expressed anger at the United States.”
“You want to make them pay for something that they did,” Mr. Tatar said to the informer, according to the complaint. “O.K., you need maps?” Soon, Mr. Tatar provided the map, the complaint says.
In November, it was the informer who volunteered that he might have a source who could provide the machine guns and heavier arms the men had long been talking about.
“Shnewer expressed interest,” the complaint says.
Would the defendants have acted on their interests but for the provocation of the informer? Was it just talk, with the action being taken by the informer?
We don't know yet, but it's something to keep in mind in following the case.
| < Meanwhile In Iraq . . | Another US Atty Scandal: Missouri > |
